On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 10:44:38PM -0700, Ephraim Dan wrote: > > > Did you try the other suggestions? > > How much improvement did each give? (when testing by destroying the > > interpreter) > > Yeah, sorry I didn't give more detail on that. Here goes: > > The first change (Doru Petrescu): > No change, still leaks 4 per connect/prepare/execute/fetch/disconnect loop.
That change is definitely a leak fix - but the leak would only happen every 120 new handles where some old handles have also been destroyed. > The (av_len(av) % 120 == 0) change: > > That does reduce it to 3 per loop, but I am not sure what you mean > that it is not a leak - when it leaks 4, it's 4 every time - it's not > stabilizing after some time, or jumping back down once in a while, or > only leaking 3 sometimes, just going up and up by 4 every time. > So how is that not a leak? I said "If that seems to have fixed one then it's not really a leak, just some caching that the DBI does." I would be more clear after s/then it's not/then that one is not/. > As I said, the "if (0)" on the whole chunk of code produces squeaky clean > iterations. I've just noticed that you're using 5.8.0. Try the latest 5.8.x. Tim.
